Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Acknowledgements vi
Preface vii
References 262
Further Reading 290
Name Index 297
Subject Index 303
v
1
Introduction: Discourse and
Domination
1
2 Discourse and Power
• participant observation;
• ethnographic methods;
• experiments.
These points clearly imply that scholars in CDS are not ‘neutral’, but
commit themselves to an engagement in favour of dominated groups in
society. They take position, and do so explicitly. Whereas much ‘neutral’
social research may well have an implicit social, political or ideological
position (or, indeed, deny taking such a position, which obviously is also
taking position), scholars in CDS recognize and reflect about their own
research commitments and position in society. They are not only scien-
tifically aware of their choice of topics and priorities of research, theo-
ries, methods or data, but also sociopolitically so. They do not merely
study social problems or forms of inequality because these are ‘interest-
Introduction: Discourse and Domination 7
ing’ things to study, but explicitly also with the aim of contributing to
specific social change in favour of the dominated groups.They self-crit-
ically examine whether the results of their research might benefit the
dominant position of powerful groups in society. In addition to taking
the perspective of dominated groups, CDS scholars may also attempt to
influence and cooperate with crucial ‘change agents’ or ‘dissidents’ of
dominant groups.
There has been a great deal of debate about whether sociopolitically
committed scholarly research is at all ‘scientific’. Accusations of ‘bias’
against critical research are routine occurrences, and themselves in need
of critical analysis – if only because not committing oneself politically is
also a political choice. However, as critical scholars we should take all
serious criticism seriously. It is crucial to emphasize that a critical and
socially committed perspective does not imply less rigorous research.
None of what has just been described about critical research in the social
sciences implies that the theories and methods of CDS should be less
scientific.
On the contrary, CDS scholars are aware that discourse studies of
social problems that may effectively benefit dominated groups and that
may contribute to the abandonment or change of illegitimate discursive
practices of the symbolic elites usually require research programmes,
theories and methods that are complex and multidisciplinary. It is one
thing to formally study, for instance, pronouns, argumentation structures
or the moves of conversational interaction, and quite another to do so,
equally rigorously, as part of a much more complex research programme
that shows how such structures may contribute to the reproduction of
racism or sexism in society.
As we have seen above, this will often mean relating discourse struc-
tures to cognitive structures on the one hand and social structures on the
other.This requires multidisciplinary theories and methods.
In other words, CDS specifically deals with complex social problems,
for which it needs to apply or to develop complex theories and methods
from several disciplines, and at the same time, it must satisfy the social
criteria mentioned above – such as being relevant for dominated groups.
This means that, on the whole, the criteria for CDS research are often
more demanding than those for other forms of discourse studies.
Notice also that we are not saying that all discourse studies should be
critical studies, only that critical studies are not less scientific because they
are critical. Critical studies should be theoretically and methodologically
adequate because otherwise they would be unable to contribute to their
sociopolitical goals. In sum, bad discourse analysis, also in CDS, does not
8 Discourse and Power
Discourse control
Once it is established how such parameters of the context and the
production of discourse are controlled, we may investigate how structures
of discourse itself are being controlled: What (from global topics to local
meanings) can or should be said, and How this can or should be formu-
lated (with which words, more or less detailed, precise, in which sentence
form, in which order, more or less foregrounded, etc.)? And which
Introduction: Discourse and Domination 11
Mind control
For each phase of the reproduction process we need detailed and sophis-
ticated social, cognitive and discursive analysis. Many of the relationships
just mentioned are as yet barely understood.We are beginning to under-
stand how discourse is being understood, but much less about how such
understanding leads to various forms of ‘changes of mind’: learning,
persuasion, manipulation or indoctrination.‘Mind control’ involves much
more than just understanding text or talk, but also personal and social
knowledge, previous experiences, personal opinions and social attitudes,
ideologies and norms or values, among other factors that play a role in
changing one’s mind.
Once we have insight into such complex cognitive representations
and processes, we might be able to show, for instance, how racist report-
ing about immigrants can lead to the formation or confirmation of prej-
udices and stereotypes, which in turn can lead to – or be controlled by
the formation of – racist ideologies, which themselves can be used to
produce new racist text or talk in other contexts, which finally can
contribute to the discursive reproduction of racism.We understand much
of this today in very general terms but, again, the details of such processes
of discursive influences on the minds or people are barely understood.
The study of media influence in terms of ‘mind control’ should take
place within a broader sociocognitive framework that relates the complex
structures of today’s (new) media landscape to the uses of these media,
and finally the many complex ways such uses may influence the minds
of people.True,‘mass’ media have given way to an enormous diversity of
alternative media, special ‘niche’ media, and especially the vast possibili-
ties of internet, cell phones and their more individual uses of news, enter-
tainment and other ‘content’. Readers and viewers may have become
more critical and independent.Yet, it remains to be seen, and needs much
more critical analysis, whether such diversity of technologies, media,
messages and opinions also means that citizens are better informed and
able to resist the sophisticated manipulation by messages that seemingly
address them more personally – but that might well implement dominant
ideologies that have not changed much. The illusion of freedom and
diversity may be one of the best ways to produce the ideological hege-
mony that will be in the interest of the dominant powers in society, not
12 Discourse and Power
least of the companies that produce the very technologies and media
contents that produce such an illusion.
those who execute the policies, the guidelines and the plans decided
above.
Re-analysing hegemony
We see how closely social analysis is related to discourse analysis and how
in various ways such a relationship also requires cognitive analysis.We see
how the classical notion of hegemony, as defined by Gramsci in his Prison
Notebooks, is given substance by a much more explicit analysis of the
processes involved, namely how ideologies are reproduced and how
Introduction: Discourse and Domination 15
people may act, out of their own free will, in the best interest of those in
power.
This account of the discursive and cognitive means of the reproduc-
tion of social power in society obviously should also go beyond the usual
macro-level analyses of sociology or political economy. Politics and the
media undoubtedly mutually influence and control each other, both
being in turn controlled by fundamental business interests, the market
and what is financially ‘viable’. Such macro analyses may be further
refined by an analysis of the relations and forms of control of classes,
groups or organizations.
in the interest of those in power and against the interests of others. Power
abuse means the violation of the social and civil rights of people. In the
area of discourse and communication, this may mean the right to be
(well) taught and educated, to be well informed, and so on.
The normative notion of legitimacy is, however, very complex, and its
adequate analysis relevant for the very foundations of CDS. If we want
to analyse and criticize domination, and if domination is defined as ille-
gitimate, we need to be very explicit about the norms, criteria or stan-
dards of legitimacy. Crucially, then, the question is: who defines what is
legitimate in the first place? A well-known answer in liberal democracies
is that such is the task of democratically elected representatives, such as
those of a parliament, a city council, etc. However, we know from history
that there have been many racist, sexist and classist laws and regulations
so that laws, as such, do not guarantee legitimacy as soon as we apply
other norms and criteria. This is even the case for the formulation of
international human rights – which we also know to have changed
historically. In other words, as is the case for all our norms, values and
knowledge, the standards of legitimacy are relative and change histori-
cally and vary cross-culturally – even when we claim each time that they
are ‘universal’.
If we have legitimate power use and illegitimate power abuse, we must
accept that we may also have legitimate forms of inequality that are
produced by them.This is not only the case in the obvious differences of
political power but also wherever else power resources are not distributed
equally – beginning with the material ones, such as money. Relevant for
us is that this is also true for non-material, symbolic resources of power,
such as knowledge and the access to public discourse. We thus find
‘normal’ inequalities as the differences of power between professors and
students, professionals and their clients, experts and lay persons or jour-
nalists and their audience. The crucial question in CDS is therefore
which of such power differences are legitimate by today’s standards of
justice and equity, or on the basis of international human rights, and
which represent cases of illegitimate power abuse. When are the power
resources of the journalist, such as special knowledge and information as
well as direct access to the mass media, used legitimately, e.g., to inform
the citizens, and when is such power abused of to misinform, to manip-
ulate or harm citizens.
We see that much of the definition of the (il)legitimacy of text and
talk is framed in terms of the negative mental consequences of discursive
domination – disinformation, manipulation, stereotypes and prejudices,
lack of knowledge and indoctrination – and how these may mean or lead
20 Discourse and Power
• if only the negative actions of black youths are represented, and not
those of other youths or, indeed, of the police;
• if the negative actions of black youths are emphasized (by hyper-
boles, metaphors) and those of the police de-emphasized (e.g., by
euphemisms);
• if the actions are specifically framed in ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ terms,
instead of actions of, say, youths, or poor people, men or another,
more relevant category;
• if riots, looting or violence are focused on as events without social
causes, for instance as a consequence of frequent police harass-
ment, or within a broader pattern of poverty and discrimination;
• if the newspapers systematically engage in this kind of racist cover-
age, and hence seem to have a policy of negative reporting about
minorities;
Introduction: Discourse and Domination 21
We see that the norms that are violated here are not controversial. On
the contrary, they are part and parcel of the professional norms of
adequate reporting which require balanced representations of events,
explaining them in terms of social causes and contexts, and a watchdog
function against abuse of power of agencies or forces of the state.
Journalists know and should know the possible consequences of racist
reporting about minority communities and hence should be very careful
to respect the general norms of professional reporting. They need not
close their eyes to minority misdeeds, nor apply self-censorship, but only
apply their own professional norms consequently when covering the
Others.
Legitimate partiality
Even the example of racist reporting of ‘riots’ is still relatively straight-
forward because we can apply general norms and values of professional
reporting to evaluate such reporting critically. However, there are many
other examples of more or less ‘bad’ or partisan reporting that do not
violate existing norms, and that do not have negative social conse-
quences, for instance when a leftist newspaper highlights the positive
qualities of a leftist candidate in elections and the negative qualities of the
right-wing candidate. Such obvious bias may be motivated when most of
the press is conservative and represents left-wing candidates (more) nega-
tively.
Similarly, the press may want to represent negatively politicians that
are corrupt, industries that pollute or discriminate, and so on, and such
coverage may be ‘biased’ against such parties, but obviously the conse-
quences are no doubt for the public good.
Thus, we can conclude that for each discursive practice we need to
examine carefully the specific context, norms and values that define
adequate practice. However, as a general rule of thumb, we can speak of
illegitimate use of discursive power, that is, of domination, if such
discourse or its possible consequences systematically violate the human
or civil rights of people. More specifically, such is the case if such
discourse promotes forms of social inequality, as when it is favouring the
interests of dominant groups, and against the best interests of non-domi-
nant groups, precisely because the latter do not have the same access to
public discourse.
22 Discourse and Power
groups and organizations perfectly well know what effects their ‘infor-
mation’, their advertising and their propaganda have on the public –
otherwise they would not engage in public communication in the first
place.
Teaching, obviously
Teaching CDS is also relevant for citizens more generally because they
can learn to be more aware of the goals of the discursive elites and how
public discourses may misinform, manipulate or otherwise harm them.
That is, the main social and practical goal of CDS is to develop strategies
of discursive dissent and resistance.
norms and values.They can explicitly suggest the elimination of all irrel-
evant references to the ethnic background of news actors, especially in
negative (crime, etc.) news.The same is true, and has been suggested, for
the coverage of the Third World or of Islam – in the same way that has
repeatedly been proposed for the media coverage of gender.
What to Do?
Summarizing, the practical relevance of CDS can be found especially in
the critical education of students as future professionals, in its role in
preparing expertise for powerful international organizations as well as for
grass-roots organizations, and by showing to corporate enterprises that
any form of discursive discrimination ultimately will be bad for business.
CDS scholars can critically analyse textbooks and propose new ones
to publishers and education authorities. They can offer to teach courses
of non-racist news writing to journalists. They can intervene in work-
shops on non-racist interaction with clients in many businesses. And so
on and so on.
It should finally be repeated again that such important practical goals
of CDS can only be realized if based on a vast amount of detailed
research into the crucial discursive practices in society, and especially in
politics, the media, education and research, that is, on the symbolic or
discursive elites and their daily practices and products. The articles
collected in this book are intended as contributions to that collective
research effort.
Name Index
297
298 Name Index
Smelser, N. J., 88 66, 72, 74–7, 79, 83, 84, 87, 89–93,
Smith, D. E., 99 95–100, 103, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 116,
Smith, P. M., 45 120, 121, 123, 125, 132, 135, 136, 138,
Smith, R. A., 173, 181 148, 162, 165, 166, 168, 173, 176, 179,
Smitherman-Donaldson, G., 45, 59, 74 181, 186, 211, 213, 214, 217, 220, 221,
Sniderman, P. M., 103 222, 226, 227, 228, 237, 239, 239, 240,
Snow, C., 43 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 251
Solomos, J., 73, 116, 178 Van Leeuwen,T., 212
Sparks, C., 36, 94 Van Oostendorp, H., 16, 100, 162, 217, 241,
Spender, D., 44 242
Sperber, D., 166 Van Zoonen, L., 91
Stam, R., 97 von Stutterheim, C., 45
Steiner, J., 247
Stoll, E. A., 49 Walker, A. G., 50
Stothard, P., 252 Walker, I., 222
Stott, M., 61 Walton, P., 33, 61, 94
Strage, A., 43 Waltzer, M., 191
Strauss, A., 31 Wearden, S.T., 36
Stredder, K., 73 Weaver, C. A., 162
Street, R., 44, 47 Wellman, D.T., 103
Strong, P. M., 49 Werner, F., 44
West, C., 44, 48, 98
Tajfel, H., 5, 124 Wetherell, M., 109
Tannen, D., 94 White, D. M., 28
Tardy, C. H., 51 Wilkinson, L. C., 49
Taylor, D. A., 103 Williams, J., 91
Taylor, S. E., 34, 66 Williams, R. M., 73
Tedeschi, J.T., 127 Willis, P., 33, 9, 101
Ter Wal, J., 97 Wilson, C. C., 59, 61, 74, 96
Tetlock, P. E., 103, 159, 181 Wilson, D., 166
Therborn, G., 28 Wilson, P. S., 191
Thomas, J., 85 Winant, H., 103
Thomas,W. I., 240 Wodak, R., 213, 70, 85, 87, 90, 92, 93, 98,
Thomason, R., 238 98, 98, 99, 93, 94, 109, 213, 221, 238
Thorne, B., 28, 44, 94 Wolff, J., 33
Todd, A. D., 47, 48, 98, 99 Wortham, S. 246
Tolmach Lakoff, R., 61 Wrong, D. H., 28, 65, 88
Tompkins, P. K., 52 Wyer, R. S. J., 159, 169
Treichler, P., 38
Trew,T., 59, 85, 87, 94, Young, J., 56, 61
Trömel-Plötz, S., 44 Young, M., 36
Troyna, B., 59 Young, R. A., 238
Tuchman, 36, 55, 61, 74, 56
Tulving, E., 219, 241 Zaller, J. R., 174
Turkel, G., 85 Zanna, M. P. 103
Turner, B. S., 33 Zimmerman, D. H., 44, 237
Turow, J., 55, 56 Zimmerman, H. D., 95
Žižek, S., 95
UNESCO, 57, 96 Zoppi, C., 38
Zoppi-Fontana, M., 96
Van Dijk,T.A., 27, 34, 36, 45, 46, 55–7, 59–62, Zwaan, R. A., 100, 162, 16, 217, 241, 242
Subject Index
303
304 Subject Index
racist reporting, 20–1, 24; see also racism and stereotypes, in textbooks, 115
the press Stokes, Sir John, 157ff.
racist talk, 44–6; see also conversation, and stories, and racism, 110, 132–3
discourse strikes, and news, 61
radical media, 37, 58 style,
relevance, 249, 238 and racism, 133
reproduction of social power, 9ff. political discourse, 182
research, and racism, 76 Sun,The, 139ff.
resolution 144 symbolic elites, 14, 32, 36, 37, 38
reversal, of accusation of racism, 128, 151–2 symbolic power, 12, 14, 32, 33
rhetoric, 105 syntax, 104
rhetoric, political discourse, 182 systemic linguistics, 237
rhetoric, war, 185–210
rhetorical question, 252 talk,
Rushdie, Salman, 77, 158 classroom, 49
courtroom, 98
schemas, talk, racist, 44–6; see also discourse; racism
discourse, 105 teaching CDS, 24
political discourse, 179 terrorism, 205f.
scope, textbooks, 12, 61–2
of access, 69–70 and ideology, 36–7
power, 40 and racism, 114–16
scripts, knowledge, 160 and stereotypes, 115
security, 203–7 and Third World, 62, 115
security council, 194, 234 texts, institutional, 54
self-disclosure, 52 topics of conversation, 109
semantic memory, 159ff. Third World,
setting, and access, 69 and news, 57
short-term memory, manipulation, 217–19 in textbooks, 62, 115
situation, 238 topics
defining the, 191ff., 240 of conversation, racist, 109
discourse analysis as, 12ff. and power, 91
and power, 66 and racism, 112, 132
ideology as, 34 news, 60
manipulating, 221 of political discourse, 179
social topoi, 198–9
inequality, 8 in parliamentary discourse, 117
influence on discourse, 16 triangle, discourse–cognition–society, 16, 213
power, 29 turn-taking, 43
problems, 6, 7
representations, 222 UNESCO, 57
structure, 4, 16
social–political functions of racism denial, values, 225
128–32 verbal derogation, 45
society, and manipulation, 213ff. violation of human rights, 19
sounds, 104
speech acts, 105 war rhetoric, 185–210
and power, 37, 90 written discourse, 54
speech style, 45
state terrorism, 225 Zapatero, José Luís Rodríguez, 254ff.